Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

reply to post by rhinoceros

I understand. I think I misinterpreted what the paper was saying. I thought he was saying evolution was driven by energy dissipation. The other poster corrected me on that.
So what England's actually saying is the second law of thermodynamics is actually driving these clusters of atoms into complex order.

Astyanax
reply to post by addygrace

 

One problem I have with what he's saying is this quote: "You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant," England was quoted in Quanta Magazine.

That really seems absurd. I'm sure he meant carbon atoms, but it's still absurd.

He didn't mean carbon atoms, and it isn't absurd. You might have to shine that light for a few billion years, though.

There's also a quote where he says this doesn't go against Darwinian evolution. But if he is correct, then natural selection is not the driving factor, energy dissipation is.

That does not follow. The driver of biological evolution is natural selection. But this hypothesis is not concerned with biological evolution; it is concerned with abiogenesis.

What would be the purpose for the universe to order itself so it could disorder itself?

Two problems with that: one, natural processes are not purpose-driven; two, this general increase in disorder is achieved by local increases in order.

If the 2nd law of thermodynamics is pushing these elements to emerge into order, how does it know this order will be a better way of dissipating energy?

We must not make the error of attributing purpose or intent to inanimate natural processes. Matter is so constituted that it just happens to fall into certain arrangements, that's all there is to it. The second law of thermodynamics isn't responsible. Laws have no motive power.

Actually after further review, you are wrong. He is talking about evolution.

Here's a quote from England himself: "We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely Evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environments external drives on the way to getting there" England said

reply to post by Astyanax


I don't ever recall hearing that the presence of life violates thermodynamics in any sense.

You would think it obvious given how atoms arrange themselves that thermodynamics is yet another method of explaining the origination of organic matter.

The best way to see these results would be to test organic matter. The structure of amino acids and proteins.

We already know we can build these structures in a lab. But what we need to see is if we can build these structures and form them into organic compounds complex enough to generate single cell life forms, and record, through scanning electron imaging, how these base formations take place. All you really need is light, heat, the base materials, and motion.

reply to post by projectvxn



Question regarding the second law of thermodynamics is fail attempt by ID followers to describe that it require pre-existing complex close mechanism to work. Here is well put answer to that question...

Source: Assertion: The second law of thermodynamics rules out abiogenesis

 

The second law of thermodynamics poses no barrier to abiogenesis, since all of the various environments in which abiogenesis has been hypothesized to occur are open systems, receiving a constant influx of energy from outside sources (e.g. from the sun, from electric discharge in the atmosphere, from deep sea vents), and the second law of thermodynamics concerns only closed systems. Some creationists respond that the second law of thermodynamics requires an already existing complex system to catalyze reactions even in open systems; however, there is in fact no stipulation in the second law of thermodynamics about such complex systems being required. Even were their claim correct, it would have nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

reply to post by projectvxn

You would think it obvious given how atoms arrange themselves that thermodynamics is yet another method of explaining the origination of organic matter.

Could you elaborate on this a little? (I'm certainly not saying you're wrong.)

reply to post by Astyanax


Yep.

To which I will turn to the definition of the second law in relation to biological open systems:

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is concerned primarily with whether or not a given process is possible. The Second Law states that no natural process can occur unless it is accompanied by an increase in the entropy of the universe.[6] Stated differently, an isolated system will always tend to disorder. Living organisms are often mistakenly believed to defy the Second Law because they are able to increase their level of organization. To correct this misinterpretation, one must refer simply to the definition of systems and boundaries. A living organism is an open system, able to exchange both matter and energy with its environment. Take, for example, the assembly of a virus molecule from its subunits, which involves an increase of order. If the virus is considered an isolated system, this process would be in defiance of the Second Law. However, a virus molecule interacts directly with its environment. The assembly of a virus molecule results in an increase of entropy in the system as a whole due to the liberation of water of solvation from the components and the resulting increase in rotational and translational entropy of the solvent

In atomic structure the same is true in relation to entropy, a basic tenet of thermodynamics. The fact that this is even being debated by creationists makes me wonder if they are simply burying their heads in the sand, or if they are just too damned stupid to understand it.

projectvxn
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Yep.

To which I will turn to the definition of the second law in relation to biological open systems:

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is concerned primarily with whether or not a given process is possible. The Second Law states that no natural process can occur unless it is accompanied by an increase in the entropy of the universe.[6] Stated differently, an isolated system will always tend to disorder. Living organisms are often mistakenly believed to defy the Second Law because they are able to increase their level of organization. To correct this misinterpretation, one must refer simply to the definition of systems and boundaries. A living organism is an open system, able to exchange both matter and energy with its environment. Take, for example, the assembly of a virus molecule from its subunits, which involves an increase of order. If the virus is considered an isolated system, this process would be in defiance of the Second Law. However, a virus molecule interacts directly with its environment. The assembly of a virus molecule results in an increase of entropy in the system as a whole due to the liberation of water of solvation from the components and the resulting increase in rotational and translational entropy of the solvent

In atomic structure the same is true in relation to entropy, a basic tenet of thermodynamics. The fact that this is even being debated by creationists makes me wonder if they are simply burying their heads in the sand, or if they are just too damned stupid to understand it.

Im not saying order can't be in a system that is ruled by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm saying Jeremy England will be proven wrong about it being the driving factor in the evolution of life on Earth.

reply to post by addygrace


Life on Earth has evolved in an open system. Life being an open system itself it stands to reason that thermodynamics can account for abiogenesis on Earth, not the cause of, but simply a mechanism of. Thermodynamics is not a REASON for WHY something works, it is simply a METHOD for HOW something works.

reply to post by vasaga


What does the length a hypothesis remains a hypothesis have to do anything? There could be a load of different reasons we haven't upgraded abiogenesis from a hypothesis to a theory yet. Lack the sufficient technology to throughly test it, leaves too many holes in the explanation, fails to predict things it should predict due to lack of information, not enough peer review having been done to upgrade it to a theory, and yes even it could be wrong. Also, it is a hypothesis, NOT a theory. At this point it is still just an idea to explain how life started not an accepted fact. Actually the fact that you insinuated that there should be a time limit to how long a hypothesis remains as such suggests that we should rush science. We don't rush science, we take our time with it. When you rush science, you end up with nonsense like YEC.

reply to post by projectvxn


It should also be stated that life itself is a GREAT source of dissipating energy. Life is VERY energy intensive and it can even be argued that life is one of the ways that the universe actually utilizes the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Meaning that all those creationists are wrong and that the SLoT doesn't disprove life, but actually works with it.

projectvxn
reply to post by addygrace

 

Life on Earth has evolved in an open system. Life being an open system itself it stands to reason that thermodynamics can account for abiogenesis on Earth, not the cause of, but simply a mechanism of. Thermodynamics is not a REASON for WHY something works, it is simply a METHOD for HOW something works.

Just because life on Earth is an open system doesn't mean Thermodynamics can account for Abiogenesis. Jeremy England is saying Thermodynamics is the cause of Abiogenesis and Evolution.
Thermodynamics could be said to cause order. But the order Jeremy England is attributing to Thermodynamics will be proven wrong. Thermodynamics can be the basis for order on the level of, let's say, flushing your toilet. The way the water is ordered is on a totally different level than the emergence of life. If he can in someway show how basic order can lead to order of the magnitude of emergence of life then he probably will get a Nobel Prize.

We see order in the world and nature all the time, but to say order in general makes abiogenesis inevitable; Well that is an extraordinary claim. For an extraordinary claim you need extraordinary evidence.

reply to post by addygrace




Abiogenesis = Spontaneous Generation.

It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that.

Talk Origins



Variations of this idea have existed for a very long time. The universe used to be a less complex place to these philosophers.
Anaximenes,Xenophanes,Empedocles,Anaxagoras

Anaximenes, his pupil (588-524) thought that air was the element that imparted life, motion and thought, and supposed there was a primordial terestrial slime, a mixture of earth and water, from which the sun's heat formed plants, animals and human beings directly. [Osborn 35]

Xenophanes (576-480), the founder of the Eliatic School, traced the origin of man back to the transitional period between the fluid stage of the earth and the formation of land. He too held to a spontaneous generation of fully formed plants and animals under the influence of the sun. So too did Parmenides (b544).

Talk Origins



The ideas of Jeremy England are nothing new.

The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

He is some kid who reads Talk Origins and ripped off a philosophers hypothesis.

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

Link

reply to post by dusty1

What's new from what he's saying is through the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics life's emergence is inevitable. Also he says natural selection is a special case. He claims evolution is driven by energy dissipation. That's also new.

flyingfish
reply to post by vasaga

 

What a load of crap!

Show us one thing in science that has been proven wrong and is not being admitted too.

Oh I don't know...Cannabis making people violent? Games making people violent? Vaccines being completely safe? That genes control the cell? Need I go on?

flyingfish
ALL great human endeavors have their fare share of bad politics.
If we subscribe to your thinking the Earth would still be flat,

If you'd subscribed by my thinking we'd have had world peace a long time ago. But you're too busy hating on others' perspectives rather than developing your own.

flyingfish
the god's created the elements and we would still be sacrificing chickens.

Strawman + red herring + appeal to ridicule + well poisoning detected. Abort discussion immediately.

flyingfish
Science is self correcting, if a hypothesis is proven wrong it will be tossed aside and be replaced with something that works or trashed all together.

Science is not independent of human behavior or human emotions. It is still carried out by humans and it is extremely naive to think that when their salary and thus their whole life, is dependent on supporting the status quo, they will challenge it. Especially when the funding comes in general from private companies that don't want to support anything that has a conflict of interest. Wake up.

flyingfish
As for abiogenesis, on a daily basis new information is being added to the vast knowledge that has already been accumulated. No one in science is claiming to know all the processes that lead up to the formation of life in this solar system.
But to claim "we've gotten nowhere" is pure bullsh#t

We've gotten nowhere. If for a 100 years I say I'm building a car, but we still have not even a chassis, we have gotten nowhere. The car is the target, no car = no accomplishment. Life from aminoacids is the target. No life has been created, thus, no accomplishment. Progress does not mean the hypothesis is true. It doesn't mean it's false either, but, people like you already view it as true. But when someone does the same thing with their own religion, you criticize it, ridicule it, slander the person, and then walk away pretending you were victorious in the argument.. The full realization of hypocrisy. Time to change that buddy.

'You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,' England said, calling the emergence of life from inanimate matter 'as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.

if its inevitable then how come we have only ever seen it happen once in the millions and millions of years that the earth has been around? If its inevitable and simple to start off then its should be happening all the time yes? We should have millions of different family trees present on this planet..yet we only have one.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


They probably mean it's inevitable, in the sense that mainstream science has no idea what else to look for, so it's the only thing they are willing to support and/or investigate as of now. Because all else is already considered 'pseudo-science', even when it has merit.

reply to post by addygrace


Nice to see this thread revive; thanks for bringing it back.

Jeremy England is saying Thermodynamics is the cause of Abiogenesis and Evolution.

I don't think he's saying that. He's saying that thermodynamic conditions in the universe make the emergence of living things inevitable. So: not a cause, but a precondition. The impulse that originates life, if such a first cause can be identified, would be something quite different.

Projectvxn is probably right when he or she says that the conclusion is implicit in the laws of thermodynamics, but the thing is, England has worked out the mathematics, making the implicit explicit.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Because anything remotely lifelike that isn't yet living gets gobbled up by the hungry living things around it.

Astyanax
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

Because anything remotely lifelike that isn't yet living gets gobbled up by the hungry living things around it.

I think that is a very good reply.

reply to post by vasaga


Your attempt to assassinate the character of your opponent rather than making any kind of relevant comment regarding his argument still has no bearing on the subject of this thread.
Apparently my rather simple arguments slipped right past you, and you descended once again into meaningless nonsense taken out of context.

What you posted, instead of having anything even remotely to do with the actual topic I was referring to, was a feeble attempt to restore face through appealing to semantic irrelevancies.

You might find that you need to make fewer accusations of strawman arguments if you make your arguments more clearly in the first place, but I suppose that would be asking a lot from the likes of you.

Well Done...